DGREEN@IBM.COM (Dan R. Greening) (02/21/91)
I received this note as a personal e-mail message. Given some recent discussions in sci.med.aids and soc.motss regarding HIV antibody positive status for VAXSYN vaccine recipients, I suspected others might find this interesting (my friend finds it alarming). I obtained permission to post it anonymously. My friend and I are uninfected and in the VAXSYN vaccine study sponsored by NIH. We both have strong gp160 and gp120 antibody response, and a strong Elisa positive response. Dan Greening / dgreen@cs.ucla.edu ------------- Dear Dan, I just received my HIV blood test results yesterday, from an anonymous, free test site in California. The State of California has certified me as HIV positive based upon reactive results on both ELISA and IFA [immunoflourescent assay], and showing gp160/gp120 bands on Western Blot. It took a while to obtain the results as --- County detected conflicting results on the first two tests and sent my specimen to the State for confirmation. The State then claimed they never received my sample but then found it. This process took about 6-weeks. I don't think my results should have been categorized positive just on those two bands. This is scary, as I was always told that it takes several more bands for confirmation. The ones used are only envelope antibodies. [envelope proteins include gp160, gp120, and p41] Sigh. Some times the news is good, sometimes it is not. ------------- A little more background from Dan: In fact, the State of California does look for HIV core proteins, which more conclusively indicate infection. As expected, my friend had no antibody response to any core proteins on the State of California test. I mentioned in an earlier posting that a bad Western Blot reader could misinterpret us as positive. It seems that the State of California is a bad Western Blot reader: the Western Blot was accurate, but the diagnosis was false. My friend, by the way, was also denied insurance based solely on his involvement in a vaccine study! -- ____ /Dan Greening until Feb 25: NY (914) 784-7861 / dgreen@cs.ucla.edu CA Northern (408) 973-8081 / Southern (213) 825-2266
dgreen@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Dan R. Greening) (02/22/91)
In article <1991Feb22.130343.9747@cs.ucla.edu> jfh@netcom.COM (Jack Hamilton) writes: >In article <1991Feb21.135348.18416@cs.ucla.edu> dgreen@cs.ucla.edu writes: >>My friend, by the way, was also denied insurance based solely on his >>involvement in a vaccine study! > >How did the insurance company find out that he is in the study? Surely he >wasn't so careless as to volunteer the information. My friend is somewhat naive (becoming less naive all the time, though). Yes, he volunteered the information. If the insurance company is to be believed, they do not insure anyone that they know is involved in any experimental drug/vaccine study. The insurance company told him that he would be able to obtain insurance after the conclusion of the study, however. I don't know that this is necessarily a gay-male discrimination thing, though that may be my naivete showing. -- ____ \ /Dan Greening until Feb 25: NY (914) 784-7861 \/ dgreen@cs.ucla.edu CA Northern (408) 973-8081 / Southern (213) 825-2266
bob@ozdaltx.UUCP (Bob Culmer) (02/24/91)
In article <1991Feb22.172133.18671@cs.ucla.edu>, dgreen@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Dan R. Greening) writes: > > If the insurance company is to be > believed, they do not insure anyone that they know is involved in any > experimental drug/vaccine study. The insurance company told him that he > would be able to obtain insurance after the conclusion of the study, > however. I don't know that this is necessarily a gay-male discrimination > thing, though that may be my naivete showing. I have worked in the area of employee benefits for nearly 20 years and in that time known a lot of insurance people, policies and the reasoning behind them. This time, they are probably being consistent and accurate. There are actuarily unknown risks associated with being in any experimental study - if they were known it wouldn't be experimental, eh? And of course the insurance company only makes its money by playing the "house" in a "gambling game" where the "odds" (actuarial rates of disease, disability, death) are known. There are two things I would be concerned about, though. After the study is over, presumably a lesser though similar unknown risk profile exists, how will this be addressed? What information will the insurance company want (and can it be had? is it a reasonable/feasible or even "doable" request?) to insure him? This would certainly be true of any experimental study - especially one involving a vaccine, more especially one for a disease with a long "latency" or "incubation" period (whichever is the more correct). And the second is what I believe you mentioned, they will likely presume he is gay from being in the study - and they are a conservative lot by and large. This last could make them be a little more concerned about the first "concern". (I do so love to turn a twisted phrase.) But to the -- Bob Culmer - Dallas | Oh I could tell you why Somewhere over the rainbow | the ocean's near the shore... ...in the Land of OZ | If I only had a brain. {mic,void,egsner}!ozdaltx!bob